Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

As part of the Content Modularization Project, this CL moves the
implementation of the wake_lock_service.mojom interface from
//content/browser to //device. It also moves that interface itself
out from Blink to //device.

BUG=612346
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/d46e883138e3023c3ebc342f64dc8eda22926144
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#423831}

[blundell, 2016-10-03 12:08:29]

Description was changed from

==========
Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

As part of the Content Modularization Project, this CL moves the
implementation of the wake_lock_service.mojom interface from
//content/browser to //device. It also moves that interface itself
out from Blink to //device.

BUG=612346
==========

to

==========
Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

As part of the Content Modularization Project, this CL moves the
implementation of the wake_lock_service.mojom interface from
//content/browser to //device. It also moves that interface itself
out from Blink to //device.

BUG=612346
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

[blundell, 2016-10-03 12:11:16]

The CQ bit was checked by blundell@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 12:11:31]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 12:23:22]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 12:23:24]

Dry run: Exceeded global retry quota

[blundell, 2016-10-03 12:34:24]

The CQ bit was checked by blundell@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 12:34:35]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 13:44:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 13:44:45]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[blundell, 2016-10-03 14:32:50]

blundell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dcheng@chromium.org, esprehn@chromium.org, jam@chromium.org,
rockot@chromium.org

[blundell, 2016-10-03 14:32:51]

jam: //content
rockot: //device
esprehn: //third_party/WebKit
dcheng: security stamp on //device/wake_lock/public/interfaces

Thanks!

[blundell, 2016-10-03 14:33:30]

alogvinov: FYI

[blundell, 2016-10-03 14:33:41]

The CQ bit was checked by blundell@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 14:33:47]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 16:16:59]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-03 16:17:00]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[dcheng, 2016-10-03 17:39:08]

mojo changes lgtm

[jam, 2016-10-03 17:43:47]

lgtm

[Ken Rockot(use gerrit already), 2016-10-03 17:54:11]

device lgtm with optional nit, since you're effectively renaming the interface
anyway.

Optional nit: Calling an interface "FooService" is generally a bad idea since it
creates a duplicate meaning for "service" in the servicification universe.
Ideally "service" would consistently mean a thing which exposes interfaces. I
know we call things FooService in many other places today, but I would like to
discourage it moving forward.

Would you perhaps want to change the interface name to simply WakeLock? Again,
LGTM either way.

[blundell, 2016-10-05 11:49:43]

esprehn@: ping for //third_party/WebKit. Thanks!

[blundell, 2016-10-07 07:01:20]

blundell@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jochen@chromium.org

[blundell, 2016-10-07 07:01:20]

Jochen, could you please look at //third_party/WebKit? Thanks!

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2016-10-07 07:05:48]

lgtm

[blundell, 2016-10-07 07:08:56]

The CQ bit was checked by blundell@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-07 07:09:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-07 10:34:52]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-07 10:37:13]

Description was changed from

==========
Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

As part of the Content Modularization Project, this CL moves the
implementation of the wake_lock_service.mojom interface from
//content/browser to //device. It also moves that interface itself
out from Blink to //device.

BUG=612346
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation
==========

to

==========
Content Modularization Project: Move Wake Lock to //device

As part of the Content Modularization Project, this CL moves the
implementation of the wake_lock_service.mojom interface from
//content/browser to //device. It also moves that interface itself
out from Blink to //device.

BUG=612346
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_site_isolation

Committed: https://crrev.com/d46e883138e3023c3ebc342f64dc8eda22926144
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#423831}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-10-07 10:37:15]

Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/d46e883138e3023c3ebc342f64dc8eda22926144
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#423831}

[xing.xu, 2016-10-07 15:12:42]

On 2016/10/07 10:37:15, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
> https://crrev.com/d46e883138e3023c3ebc342f64dc8eda22926144
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#423831}

In android, this wake lock is finally done by View.setKeepScreenOn and
powermanager. That's why android's implementation depends on NativeView. But why
does a feature like wake lock needs to depend on Android's View system? Will
Android change this in the future?

[blundell, 2016-10-10 08:15:43]

On 2016/10/07 15:12:42, xing.xu wrote:
> On 2016/10/07 10:37:15, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> > Patchset 4 (id:??) landed as
> > https://crrev.com/d46e883138e3023c3ebc342f64dc8eda22926144
> > Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#423831}
> 
> In android, this wake lock is finally done by View.setKeepScreenOn and
> powermanager. That's why android's implementation depends on NativeView. But
why
> does a feature like wake lock needs to depend on Android's View system? Will
> Android change this in the future?

I don't know.